I'm curious as to the pros and cons of these two lenses. I have the 16-35 and have been pretty happy with it, though the distortion bugs me a little. But I like the VR, which is nice in dark churches where tripods are not allowed. So it seems like the 17-35 offers one stop more speed and less distortion, while the 16-35 has VR and is lighter weight though slower.

From those who've used either or (ideally) both lenses, I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on the pros and cons of each.

I have not used the 16-35, but I thought I would not be keeping my 17-35AFS when I got my D800, but have been pleasantly surprised.

Is it sharp wide open? - Only in the center, but stopped down to f/8 it's pretty darned sharp all over at all focal lengths. Photozone data seems to indicate that at equivalent apertures there's not that much difference between the two.

What I really like about it is the resistance to ghosting and flare (if you don't have a filter on it that is).

There have only been a few times that I wish I'd had VR, but that was in a cave . . . .

Some day I'll take my 17-35 and shoot it next to a 16-35 to really see what the difference is (if any).

I'm sure there will be folks that have or have had both that will chime in.

I have had both, prefer the 16-35 f4 for its better focusing speed, the VRII is killer good, the Nano coating works ! In my world the 16-35 f4 VR is just sharper and more responsive to focus changes. As a PJ the loss of a stop worried me, but with today's high ISO files I can live with that. In a breaking news situation the 24-70 is more of my go to lens, coupled with a second body using the 70-200VRII. You can make some pretty nice art with the 16 - and I don't take to many pix of blank brick walls anyway Hope this helps / D

16-35 - Faster quieter focusing, slightly better edges at 16mm (though not great either) than the 17-35 at 17mm. Has vibration reduction. Much less expensive lens with slightly better sharpness.
17-35 - 2.8 is a plus, smaller overall, however much noisier slower focusing. These lenses also have a tendency to squeek when focusing which can be very irritating. They do have a manual aperture ring so can be used on older film cameras.

I traded my 16-35mm for a 17-35mm, mainly for the extra stop. Yes the 16-35 was a tiny bit sharper, and the VR is great. I think the 17-35mm has better focusing. Seems a little faster to me, especially in very dark situations (which could be because of 2.8 and brighter viewfinder). I know a lot of people have had problems with the focus motor in the 17-35 so I expect mine to get the problem someday, but so far it has been silent.

Overall I think it comes down to what you shoot. Landscapes, interiors, and static stuff I'd stay with the 16-35mm. For weddings, PJ stuff, the 17-35mm may suit you better.

Thanks for everyone's input. Nathan's last line about "landscapes, interiors, and static stuff" is spot on, since that's pretty much exactly what I shoot. After all your comments and a little research, I've decided to keep my 16-35 and not go looking for potentially-greener grass.